When Expertise Isn't Enough: Why Some Subject Matter Experts Thrive as Managers and Others Struggle (October 2026 TogetHR Times)

By John Wright

As organizations grow, they often face a familiar challenge: how to create leadership capacity without losing the expertise that helped them succeed in the first place. A common solution is to promote the most knowledgeable employees into management positions. After all, if someone is the best coder, engineer, accountant, consultant, or technician on the team, they should be able to lead others doing similar work.

Sometimes that works exceptionally well. Other times, it does not.

The difference is not usually about intelligence, work ethic, or technical knowledge. More often, it comes down to a simple reality that organizations sometimes overlook: people management is its own skill set. Being an expert in a subject area and being able to manage people who work in that subject area are two very different things. While there can certainly be overlap between the two, expertise alone does not automatically prepare someone to recruit talent, onboard new employees, coach performance, navigate conflict, facilitate difficult conversations, or build a high-performing team.

Many organizations assume these abilities will naturally develop once someone is given a leadership title. While some individuals do possess natural strengths that make the transition easier, effective people management ultimately requires practice, learning, and ongoing development.

Consider the example of a software developer who has spent years mastering coding languages, platforms, and technical systems. Their success may have been built on their ability to solve complex problems independently, diagnose issues quickly, and produce high-quality work. Those skills make them an exceptional contributor.

However, managing a team of developers requires a different perspective. Success is no longer measured by what the individual produces personally. Instead, success depends on how effectively they enable others to perform. That shift can be difficult, even for highly capable professionals.

People managers must communicate clearly, establish expectations, provide feedback, coach employees through challenges, address performance concerns, and think strategically about team capacity and future needs. They must often balance competing priorities while supporting employees with different personalities, experiences, motivations, and communication styles.

None of those responsibilities are typically developed through technical expertise alone.

During recent work with a medium-sized organization experiencing rapid expansion, demand for its services increased, and leadership recognized the need to create formal teams and establish team lead positions. The decision seemed straightforward. Employees were selected based on their deep knowledge of the company's systems, expertise in specific syntax and language related to the work of the organization, technological platform expertise, and years of experience supporting critical but specific initiatives. From a technical perspective, they were obvious choices.

The newly promoted team leads understood their induvial initiatives better than almost anyone else. They could answer difficult questions, troubleshoot issues, and guide development decisions with confidence. Leadership assumed these strengths would naturally translate into effective team leadership.

Unfortunately, the transition proved more challenging than expected.

Many of the new team leads had never managed people before. Their careers had rewarded  excellence unrelated to coaching, communication, or performance management. When questions arose about employee development, accountability, workload balancing, or conflict resolution, they often found themselves navigating unfamiliar territory.

Some struggled to provide constructive feedback because they were accustomed to solving problems themselves rather than coaching others through solutions. Others found it difficult to communicate expectations consistently across their teams. A few avoided challenging conversations altogether because they lacked confidence in addressing performance concerns.

At the same time, the strategic aspects of people leadership began to surface. Team leads were expected to think beyond individual projects and consider team capability, succession planning, employee engagement, hiring needs, and skill development. These responsibilities required a broader perspective than their previous roles had demanded.

None of these challenges were the result of poor intentions or a lack of competence. In fact, many of the new leaders were exceptionally talented professionals. The issue was that they were being asked to perform responsibilities for which they had never received training or experience.

Over time, the effects became visible across the organization. Employees began reporting confusion about expectations and inconsistent communication from one team to another. Questions about policies, procedures, and performance standards became more frequent. Managers approached similar situations differently because they lacked a shared leadership framework. Employee satisfaction gradually declined. Frustrations that could have been addressed through coaching and communication often lingered unresolved. As confusion increased, employee engagement decreased. Eventually, some employees began seeking opportunities elsewhere, citing inconsistent management and a lack of clarity about expectations.

Leadership initially struggled to understand what was happening. After all, they had selected highly capable and respected employees to lead their teams. Eventually, they realized they had focused almost exclusively on the successes of individual contributors while giving little consideration to the competencies required for successful people management.

Once this became clear, the organization shifted its approach. Leadership development programs were introduced. Team leads received training in communication, coaching, performance management, conflict resolution, and employee development. Rather than assuming people management skills would emerge naturally, the company began treating them as capabilities that needed to be intentionally developed.

The results were significant. Managers became more confident in addressing challenges, employees received more consistent support, and teams developed a clearer understanding of expectations. Team and role specific expertise remained important, but it was no longer viewed as the sole qualification for leadership.

This example highlights an important lesson for organizations of all sizes. The best individual contributor is not always the best people manager, and that is perfectly okay. Some employees find tremendous fulfillment in being experts in their field and have little interest in managing others. Others may possess natural leadership strengths that extend beyond technical expertise.

Neither path is inherently better. They are simply different.

As organizations grow, it can be tempting to assume that strong performers should naturally progress into management roles. However, effective leaders require more than subject matter expertise. They need the ability to develop people, build trust, communicate effectively, navigate complexity, and think strategically about team success.

When organizations recognize people management as a distinct skill set and plan accordingly, they create stronger leaders, more engaged employees, and healthier teams. In many cases, the difference between a thriving team and a struggling one is not the expertise of the manager. It is their ability to lead people.